classroom climate and students’ goal structures in high-school biology classrooms in kenya winnie...

Classroom Climate and Students’ Goal Structures in High-School Biology Classrooms in Kenya

Winnie MucherahBall State UniversityMuncie, Indiana, USAJune, 2015

Classroom climate and student learning“Typically, teachers

concentrate almost exclusively on the assessment of academic achievement and devote little attention to factors which might be related to their students’ patterns of adaptive learning and performance” p. 63

Background on Classroom ClimateDoes a classroom’s environment affect

student learning and goal structures? Can teachers conveniently assess the

climates of their own classrooms?

Do teachers and their students perceive the same classroom environments similarly?

Do students of different goal structures, grade levels or genders perceive the same classroom differently?

Prior Research

Classroom climates that are high in cooperation and cohesion:◦Reduction of inappropriate behaviour

◦Increased attendance◦Reduction in the number of assignments not completed

◦Academic improvement◦Positive attitudes◦Perceptions of fairness of grading

Prior ResearchClassroom climate differ by subject

matterScience classrooms (mixed findings):High in competition, low in affiliationLow in cooperation and cohesionSocial studies classrooms:

High in affiliation, low in competitionDiversity in science classrooms-could

be due to teacher’s teaching style

Influence of classroom climate onstudent goal structures and learning outcomes

The goal structures of classrooms influence whether students pursue learning goals (mastery

orientation) or performance goals (ego orientation).

Classroom environments high on task involvement and innovation: students with learning goal orientations◦ HOWEVER - classroom environments high on

competition had students with performance goal orientations (Patrick et al. 2003)

Students who have learning goals are more likely to maintain positive motivation in school (Anderman et al. 2002; Kaplan et al. 2002; Urdan et al. 1998).

Goal Orientations (Dweck & Legget, 1988)Mastery goals: focus on

mastering tasks and increasing competence at different tasks (e.g., how can I do this task? What will I learn?)

Performance goals: seek to maximize favorable evaluations of their ability and minimize negative evaluations of ability (e.g., Will I look bright? Can I beat others?)

Research questions1. What is the classroom climate in biology

classrooms?

2. Are there school and grade-level differences in students’ perceptions of their classroom climate?

3. What classroom climate factors predict student goal structures?

4. Do students, teachers and observers perceive the classroom climate and goal structures similarly?

DesignParticipants

◦Form 2 and 3 Ages 15 and 16

◦1 male boarding school (n=490)◦1 female boarding school (n=401)◦12 teachers

Quantitative + Qualitative◦Student questionnaires◦Teacher questionnaires◦Classroom observations

Measures: STUDENTSClassroom Climate Questionnaire

(Trickett & Moss, 1974, 1995)• Involvement• Affiliation• Teacher Support• Task Orientation• Competition

Patterns of Adaptive Learning Mastery Goals Performance Approach Goals Performance Avoidance Goals

• Order and Organization• Rule Clarity• Rule Strictness• Innovation

Measures: TEACHERS & OBSERVERS

Teacher Classroom Climate Questionnaire (Trickett & Moss, 1974, 1995) & Patterns of adaptive learning scale (Midgley et al., 1996b, 2000)Similar to student version

Classroom observations2 Observation forms (climate &

goals)◦Inter-rater reliability (.95)

Construct ValidityPrior to the visit, the 2 surveys

were sent to two volunteer teachers from each school to examine validity of items

Recruited via e-mailIdentified 2 terms: “smart” &

“dumb” which were later replaced by “bright” and “stupid”

These teachers did not participate in the study to control for possible biases

ANALYSISMANOVA:

◦Independent Variables: School Form

◦Dependent Variables All measures

RESULTS for Classroom Climate

Significant difference between schools:Schools 1 and 2 differed on all the

classroom climate variables except Teacher Support and Competition

Significant difference between grades:◦Form 3 perceived significantly more Teacher support, Task focus, Competition, and Rule strictness.

RESULTS for Learning GoalsMale boarding school(1)

reported:◦Significantly higher personal performance-approach goals

◦Teachers encouraging performance approach goals and performance avoidance goals

Female boarding school:◦Teachers encouraging mastery goals

What classroom climate factors predict student goal structures?

STUDENTS’ GOALS◦Teacher Support and Order and Organization predicted personal mastery goals

◦Task Focus and Innovation predicted personal performance approach goals

◦Competition and Rule Strictness predicted personal performance avoidance goals

What classroom climate factors predict student goal structures?

PERCEIVED TEACHERS’ GOALS◦Affiliation, Teacher Support, Rule

Clarity, and Innovation predicted perceived teacher mastery goals

◦ Involvement, Teacher support, Task Focus, Competition, Order and Organization, and Rule Clarity predicted perceived teacher performance approach goals.

◦Competition and Rule Strictness predicted perceived teacher performance-avoidance goals

What classroom climate factors predict student goal structures?

CLASSROOM GOALSAffiliation was the only significant

predictor for classroom mastery goal structures

Affiliation and Competition predicted classroom performance approach goals

Competition and Rule Strictness predicted classroom avoidance goals

Do teachers and students perceive the classroom climate similarly?Teachers generally viewed

their classroom climates more positively

Teachers and students differed on the classroom climate aspects of◦Teacher support◦Task focus◦Innovation

What are teachers’ perceptions of their classroom and school goal structures?

Teachers more frequently reported a school structured performance-approach and mastery goals than classroom structured goals, but no statistical difference.

Classroom ObservationsCLIMATE

Classroom climates were conducive to high student involvement and had supportive teachers

Students interacted positively with each other

Classroom activities and tasks were low in innovation

Clear rules and strict in enforcing these rules

No significant differences between the teachers, classes or schools

Classroom ObservationsGOAL STRUCTURES

Teachers stayed on task and checked to see if students understood

Few incidences where students worked in collaborative groups

No significant differences between the teachers, classes and schools

DiscussionClassroom climate similar in

teacher support and competitionGrade differences: form 3 high on:Involvement, task focus &

competitionSchool/Gender differences: Males-

more performance approach goalsDifference between student and

teacher perceptions on climate

DiscussionTeachers and observers revealed

positive classroom environments that are high on task focus and high performance-approach goal structures at the personal, classroom and school levels.

Cross-cultural differences: contrary to past research, there was high affiliation & performance goals

Importance of cross-cultural studies

LimitationsTeacher sample size-small, not

representative of biology teachers in Kenya

Only 4 teachers involved in validity check

Reliabilities for the classroom climate scales were relatively low (could be due to difference in meaning making of some of the items-cultural difference?)

ConclusionGoals: Mastery vs Performance“Given that the definition of a

mastery goal structure centers on learning, understanding and improvement, it is likely that culturally valued activities that reflect this goal are necessary, if not sufficient, for the creation of a meaningful goal structure which, in this study, involves performance approach goals” p. 78